Slashdot Mirror
US Internet Control To Be Topic #1 In Rio
Crazy Taco writes "It looks as though the next meeting of the UN's Internet Governance Forum is about to descend into another heated debate about US control of key Internet systems. Although the initial purpose of this year's summit was to cover such issues as spam, free speech and cheaper access, it appears that nations such as China, Iran, and Russia, among others, would rather discuss US control of the Internet. In meetings leading to up to the second annual meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janiero on Monday, these nations won the right to hold an opening-day panel devoted to 'critical Internet resources.' While a number of countries wanting to internationalize Internet control simply want to have more say over policies such as creating domain names in languages other than English, we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it."
While a number of countries wanting to internationalize Internet control simply want to have more say over policies such as creating domain names in languages other than English, we can only speculate what additional motives might be driving nations that heavily censor the Internet and lock down the flow of information across it.
Not to be confused, presumably, with a nation whose government has a demonstrated history of violating the privacy rights of its own citizens and stating on the record that it doesn't accord any such rights at all to anyone who isn't one of its own citizens, including the vast numbers of Internet users from other nations whose traffic is all but certain to pass through systems under its jurisdiction, and within which it has repeatedly been shown that major communication providers are more than willing to provide the government with access to traffic they carry without proper authorisation anyway.
Nope, I can't imagine how any other nation in the world could see a problem with that. There is no danger whatsoever of industrial espionage, interception and decoding of confidential government transmissions, or investigations of private citizens of high influence, and none of them could be used to further the interests of a nation with such access at the expense of others anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They'd talk about really internationalizing it. You know, things like setting up a new system of non ICANN roots and such. Try and get infrastructure that is independent of the US systems but interoperable and then once it is established and working well, talk about redelegation of control. For example if the EU were to set up a central agency that controls a bunch of EU based roots, mirror the ICANN root zone, get all that going well. Then they go and talk to ICANN and say "Hey, how about we split the root zone, we take the EU nations, you keep the rest, we both mirror each other." Do that in a few places around the world we could have a DNS system with more regional control, that would also be outside the ability of a single government or governments to screw up. For example if the EU later decided to be jerks, ICANN and others could stop accepting their updates, and people in and out of the EU could use the other roots.
However I have a feeling that it is going to be like most of these meetings where people just whine that the US companies should have to give up control of their resources to some international oversight body. In addition to being rather greedy, this is also stupid. Having a bunch of systems in the US that control everything but are theoreticly under international control changes nothing. The US government could change their minds at any time, and if the companies and servers are in the US they'll do as the government says because they won't have a choice. You haven't really solved anything, just added more bureaucracy and more people who can control what's going on normally but the buck still ultimately stops with the US government.
The real answer is many systems, all around the world, that are controlled by many groups. In that way there really isn't a single group that "runs" the Internet. Of course that isn't what most nations are at all interested in. They are interested in just having the US keep control, so long as the US will do what they are told.
You mean like Alt roots? or a complete seperate network without any interconnections between the two?
:-)
The whole point of the Internet was to interconnect systems.
On a more general note, are any other non-american slashdotters noticing a rather alarming number of questionable political posts on this site recently?
Us non-americans might need to go get ourselves our own slash site too.
If it's such a big problem the nations that don't like how the US-run internet works can always just seperate from the network and create their own network (or at least threaten to).
Though I doubt anyone has the balls. Personally ICANN/IANA does a pretty good job at what it does, and the FCC seems to only step in extremely rarely (if at all). And I promise you that a large majority of nations, if not every nation, intercept/store/decode internet information. Changing who 'owns' the internet would not change that at all. It would just potentially change who gets what IP blocks (alot of businesses would be pretty upset if this changed), what TLDs are official and valid (and nothing stops a nation from having their own ISP's DNS servers adding TLDs), and I guess some protocol stuff.
The US may do some terrible things but with regards to the internet it's policy is typically 'do not regulate if possibly'. Unless that changes this is all just a bunch of moaning to stur up anti-american sentiments.
It is sometimes difficult for Americans to comprehend that very few countries understand the concept of the free speech and a free press. For example, in our 21st Century, most European countries will prosecute individuals for thought crimes. In Russia, the state continues to repress the free press. The Russian web and broadcast outlets have become targets for Putin's heavy handed interference.
Muslim countries block access to web sites deemed too sexual or which differ in religious outlook from their repressive theology. China? Well, we know that story all too well. The quest of these regimes toward control of the the Internet is not rooted in a desire for "freedom" or "diversity". Quite the contrary. It is a desire to control and repress.
From what I've seen thus far, all they've done is demand control of systems and services that don't belong to them (but they're given use of).
Unless they're willing to actually, y'know, INVEST in supporting the infrastructure (their own root servers, etc), they need to step off.
It's like some of these nations that get sent food demanding steak instead of the grain.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'd hope that control of the Internet was taken out of the control of any non-representative body. I don't care who is not getting represented, the important thing is that the Internet is a federation of networks and you cannot have a federation that is run by a theocracy. If it's a federation, it cannot have anyone in overall charge, which is the way the Internet should be run. Particularly if it is supposed to be resilient to damage (cyber attacks, nuke attacks, etc).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not to be confused, presumably, with a nation whose government has a demonstrated history of violating the privacy rights
Stop right there, privacy is a different issue than censorship.
"Brave Guy" indeed, what a lemming. Just spouting off the same message about privacy issues even when it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion!
And as a last thought, are you seriously going to sit there and say a U.S. citizen has more to worry about from their government than a citizen of *Putin's Russia*? Than any Chinese citizen?
Come on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
france and germany actively prosecute people selling paraphanelia from the 3rd reich on auction sites, and france has attempted to enforce this policy on the site itself, regardless of where the auction is being held.
north korea, china and most of the middle east actively filters what its citizens are allowed to read. china has imprisoned journalists for publishing information it does not want posted, and have frequently deemed things 'state secrets' to cover up goings on inside their borders.
meanwhile the US is not perfect, however a group of senators recently had a very rough conversation with the yahoo execs regarding china and what happened with a journalist there. its better than nothing.
youll understand why im somewhat hesitant about allowing iran and china a say in how this whole thing is being run.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
so how is that the USs fault? because russia and other states in the region havent laid sufficient fiber, the US is somehow responsible?
You miss the point. It isn't about who's "responsible" for anything. We recently passed something called the "Protect America Act"- in full view of everyone, ironically with limited public debate- that allows the American government to engage in warrantless surveillance of any Internet traffic routed through the United States if either or (commonly) both endpoints of that traffic lie in a foreign country.
And it turns out, surprise surprise, that most people in the world would rather not have their packets routed through a police state.
First off, I'm having a really hard time understanding just how the US controls a network of mutual consent. That said, and I know I'm going to be modded to oblivion for not participating in the groupthink du jour (America hating), so far the US control of the gTLDs has been exemplary, impartial and efficient (Verisign's idiotic DNS pollution aside).
I'm British and yes, I can hate Bush and [Blair|Brown]'s little crusade with the best of them but I fail to see why we should fix something that isn't broken. If you really are worried about US control, use ORSN roots as I do. So far, the only reason I have had to use them is IPv6 accessible root servers, but they also go into independent mode if anyone screws with the roots with malevolence. So far, touch wood, nobody has.
Would it also be so terrible to say "thanks, USA and ICANN" for the stability they've given the gTLDs over the years? I shudder to think what would happen if the UN ever got control of the roots. Can you say "bureaucracy" and not think inefficiency and inaccessibility?
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.